Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2005, 7:08 PM   #1
Junior Member
Basia's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11

I have to make a choice very soon.

Currently, I am using a canon 700 and although the photos are fine, they are not sharp, more "silky smooth" as a reviewer of the Canon 350D said.

I am into twilight photography, and stage photography of our dance group. I like sharp colourful photos. My Minolta film SLR was wonderful.

Does anyone have any opinions on the actual photo quality of either of these two cameras.

Thank you for any help,

Basia is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 18, 2005, 3:11 AM   #2
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

For low-light photography without flash the 5D is going to be a better bet for the simple reason that you get Anti-Shake built into the body.

This means that you can use a fast prime lens and still get image stabilization. Canon only do IS in the lenses and therefore you don't get it on the fast primes. It is also of course much cheaper to pay for it only once rather than for every lens you buy.

As to the actual image quality under "normal" conditions, well they are very close and most of the time I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. The Canon's 8Mp sensor will help a bit when enlarging to A4 or bigger, but the difference in resolution between 6Mp & 8Mp is not that dramatic.

Be aware that with a DSLR you should expect to do some post-processing to get the best results, particularly if you want your images "sharp" and "colourful". DSLRs in general err on the side of soft and natural, because it is very easy to add these things in post-processing but almost impossible to remove if it's been over-done in the camera.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2005, 8:09 AM   #3
Senior Member
speaklightly's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 721


I think that Peripatetic has given you some excellent advice. However, I would like to add a few comments of my own because I do a lot of stage and theater photography. I would personally prefer the KM 5D because not only do you have the Anti-Shake feature but the maximum ISO setting on the 5D is 3200, while the Canon 350D/XT has only a maximum ISO sttting of 1600. For crucial photos, that represents a huge difference.

Sarah Joyce
speaklightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2005, 12:50 PM   #4
Junior Member
pjbear's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1

My apologies for changing the flavour of this thread, but, .........would I be correct in assuming that though the KM boasts the higher ISO range,......is it not the case that the noise ratio is more noticeable at such a setting? I guess they dont really have the same value as with wet cameras?

I am at a crossroads myself at this time,deciding whether to opt for the KM 5D or, the Canon 350D. I was also intrigued to learn that the difference twixt 6MP and 8MP is marginal too. I think that this bit of information will steer me toward the KM.

Just wondered what finished shots through a 500mm lens using the KM would look like. Hmmmmmm I guess the only way is to suck it and see as they say!

My present camera is the(Brdge DSLR) Minolta A1 and haveused itfor the past two years, so alreadypossessing four batteries for it and three 1G CF cards (though the Canon uses those too) makes more sense to consider the KM. I love this camera but at 400 ISO its, well, noisy without a doubt.

It has served me well though and I will continue to use for Macro shooting. Time to move up to a true DSLR.

Thanks for your time and the info was of great help for me. Hope you dont me butting in?

PJ (from the UK).

pjbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2005, 1:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
VAtechtigger's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 570

In an apples to apples, the Konica Minolta will have more noise at the ISO 3200 than at 1600. But, in a low light situation the extra speed will allow you to capture a shot that would otherwise be either blurry or underexposed at a given shutter speed, if you get it at all. You trade noise for the shot. Ideally all shots would be taken at ISO 50, but thats just not possible in the physical world.

In an apples to orange, I cant say whether ISO 1600 on 5D is better or worse noise wise than the rebel at ISO 1600. Take a look at the sample in steves reviews to find out.
VAtechtigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2005, 2:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
VAtechtigger's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 570

ok, well you got me interested as I have the 5D, and took a look at the sample photos of both at ISO 1600. They look identical to me, maybe just maybe the grain is a bit finer on the rebel. But then, you have the 3200 setting on the 5D so you can get those really dark shots that the rebel cant handle, plus IS if you have to hand hold the shot.

I can thoroughly recommend the 5D
VAtechtigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2005, 3:05 PM   #7
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

i am with sarah and peripatetic on this.. for your needs the 5d has the advantage for the reasons everyone has given before me..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:04 PM.